Send us a link
Sneha Kulkarni from Editage takes a look at the ever-increasing global scientific output, and asks questions about quantity versus quality.
Today, Clarivate is announcing that it recently acquired Kopernio, a startup launched last year to streamline access to scholarly content.
Firsthand account about the experience of racism in scholarly publishing, showing we have "a great deal of powerful and humbling work to do" to address racism and the white-dominated culture of our industry.
A flawed article claiming that manuscripts don't change much between being preprints and published articles somehow makes it through peer review unchanged.
Should we treat preprints the same way that we treat reviewed and published material? If so, how can we make that clear to readers?
Overlooking the need for paid Editorial Office staff hobbles many attempts to reform peer review.
In 1940, the AAUP published a Statement on Academic Freedom. In 2018, it's time for it to be updated--and some items clarified.
Organizations launching OA journals have many choices to make. What are their technology options?
In the early days of digital, we were led to believe that the economics of scarcity would be repealed by the removal of supply constraints in the digital world. But that hasn’t happened.
Elsevier is often thought to be the enemy of academic libraries, but in fact its practices improve libraries and lower costs.
A statistical look back at the year in The Scholarly Kitchen.
After several high surplus years, a relatively small 2016 deficit will not sink PLOS.
Information manipulation is not new, yet everything is different. How do governments, preprints, algorithms, and our own responsibilities intersect? Where does peer review come in now?
How do evolving forms of digital scholarship fit into the current landscape and what are the implications for publishers?
Ideally, we want science and scholarship to be not only available to the general public, but also comprehensible to them. But the challenges to doing so are real, and may vary both by discipline and by study type.
Metrics are notoriously inappropriate for evaluating humanistic scholarship. HumetricsHSS is an initiative to embed metrics with humanistic values.
Elizabeth Gadd takes a look at the contradictions between scholarly culture and copyright culture, and the cognitive dissonance created.
In analyzing the marketplace of scholarly publishers and scientific workflow providers, a key strategic question is: Who owns Digital Science?
Last week's Transforming Research conference in Baltimore, MD, gathered a range of speakers across the academic and professional spectrum.
Canadian Science Publishing's Mary Seligy provides a primer on standards, XML and JATS4R, which is driving improved reusability of scholarly content.
Journal editors are more likely to reject papers when they experience trouble recruiting reviewers, reports a new study.
While few will disagree with their motives, the authors provide no roadmap for scientific societies. It may be time to learn from the successes of commercial rivals.
Once again, the term "open" requires further thought to probe the pros and cons. With open source, we may be once again doing things that make the big bigger and the small less relevant.
Here's a brief summary of some key takeaways from this year's Peer Review Congress, held every four years. A talk by the Swiss National Science Foundation was especially enjoyed.
What kind of peer review is developing to evaluate long-form digital scholarship? A view from AAUP press editors.
PubMed is found to contain predatory journals and publishers, likely reflecting a long-term and broader problem, which only adds to the confusion about what exactly PubMed represents at this point.
The recent attempt by China to censor scholarship points to a growing set of challenges in information dissemination. Blaming the publisher obscures these issues.
A recent book took aim at accelerating administrative demands and the internalized expectation of measurable productivity that have eroded the quality of academic life and work. Is there a corollary for scholarly publishing?
